Background

How to participate:

The FSN Forum is supported by the project Coherent food security responses: incorporating right to food into global and regional food security initiatives

The consultation is now closed! Thank you for your participation.

Online Consultation on the CFS Global Strategic Framework

Dear colleagues,

The process of developing the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (GSF) is progressing well. The First Draft of this important document has been or will be discussed at the FAO Regional Conferences (March - May 2012), and online through the Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) Forum (12th March to 15th May 2012).

We would like to invite you to take an active part in the online consultation by providing written comments on the First Draft. These comments will feed into the preparation of the Second Draft, which will be examined at a CFS consultation in Rome in June 2012, and eventually into the First Version of the GSF to be submitted to the October 2012 Plenary Session of the CFS.

Last year’s online consultation on the Annotated Outline of the GSF was quite broad in scope, receiving individual as well as collective contributions, which provided a great deal of input to the First Draft of the GSF. However, on this occasion we would like the online consultation to be limited to collective contributions, such as from member governments, organizations, institutions and networks.

When providing comments on the First Draft, please bear in mind the following guidelines used in its preparation:

The GSF is intended to be a dynamic document that will be updated from time to time to reflect regular CFS processes, policy debates and changing priorities; the First Version should therefore focus on the most important agreed decisions and frameworks;

The preparation of the First Version should avoid including any material that would require an exhaustive negotiation of text;

The main focus of the First Version would be to present issues on which there is a broad existing consensus, taking into account (i) CFS’s own decisions/recommendations, and (ii) directly relevant policy/other frameworks;

The First Version should limit itself to simply highlighting other issues of importance where there is no consensus and where further work is required to achieve convergence.

We would ask you to focus your comments on the following key questions:

Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which there is broad regional and international consensus?

Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?

Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level relevance? Can you suggest improvements?

How can the GSF be linked to regional and national food security and nutrition frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring mechanisms, in ways that promote two-way coordination and convergence?

In addition to the above points, please note that the Second Draft of the GSF, to be prepared by May 2012, will also contain a series of boxes with case studies that illustrate best practices related to the policy recommendations in Chapter IV. You could greatly assist us in this process by proposing innovative examples that we might include. The emphasis should be on how application of best practice in these areas has translated into significant positive outcomes for target beneficiaries – hungry and malnourished people in developing countries.

You can download the First Draft of the GSF here, but please note that we cannot accept any comments made on the document itself using the track changes tool. We would also urge you to keep your contributions to this consultation as concise and focused as possible – case studies, for example, should not exceed 500 words, and preferably should be shorter than that.

Thank you in advance for your participation in this important consultation.

The consolidated draft contributions from CSO consultations at regional conferences on the GSF First Draft is a synthesis from civil society contributions to the questions raised by the CFS Secretariat on the GSF first draft online consultation. It is the result from contributions compiled during civil society consultations held in the frame of FAO regional conferences in March and April. A range of civil society actors had the opportunity to hold regionally specific discussions in Hanoi, Buenos Aires, Baku and Brazzaville on the main aspects of the GSF first draft based on a summary assessment prepared by the CSM Working Group on GSF.
However, when drafting this paper, the final recommendations of the civil society West Asia/North Africa meeting have not been finalized. Results from the civil society consultation, as realized on May 4-5 in Beirut, will be included in the final version of this paper, to be submitted to you within the extended deadline, before May 15.
The purpose of this synthesis is to support the CFS secretariat with a precise and comprehensive document, by
a) Identifying the main common points of concern and joint proposals of civil society organizations gathered at the regional consultations regarding the GSF, along the lines of the four questions raised by the secretariat (Page 2-16);
b) Compiling in the annexes of this document the different documents that have been elaborated by members of the CSM working group on GSF or by the regional consultations of civil society, with particular relevance for the GSF draft two (page 17-49).
We hope that the substantial proposals included in the enclosed civil society contributions will be useful for the elaboration of the second draft. And please do not hesitate to contact us whenever you need further information or clarification.
Best,
Natalia Landivar on behalf of the CSM Task Team Members on GSF

Special Rapporteur on the right to food,&nbspOlivier De Schutter, Switzerland, UN agencies and other UN bodies

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food welcomes the First Draft of the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (GSF) and expresses his thanks to all the delegations who were involved in shaping this document. He offers the following comments:
A. The GSF and the human right to adequate food
1. The Special Rapporteur commends the First Draft for confirming the right to food as an overarching framework for the action of the CFS (paras. 23-25). The definition of the right to food (paras. 14-16) rightly refers to some of the most important elements of the right to food as recognized in international human rights law, notably the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and General Comment No. 12 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The references to the Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security (VGRtF) are important, and the proposal to summarize some of the duties of States in implementing the right to food at national level in “seven steps” (para. 38) is also very welcome, as it provides in simple terms adequate guidance to States’ efforts to progressively realize the right to food.
2. The GSF, however, could be clearer in stating the progressive realization of the human right to adequate food as an ultimate goal of the GSF. While this overall goal is implied through several references to the right to food throughout the document, such as the objective stated in paragraph 18 “to identify and prioritize challenges affecting the realization of food security and nutrition and the right to adequate food for all people,” it would be important to make it more explicit. This would be consistent both with the CSF 2009 Reform Document, which placed the right to food at the centre of the reform, as rightly recalled in a recent FAO note on the GSF; and with existing international obligations of States to progressively realize the human right to adequate food, as framed in international human rights law. Placing the right to food as the goal of the GSF does not create new legal obligations. It simply reemphasizes a commitment to implement existing obligations. A new paragraph could be added in the introduction section to refer to this ultimate goal.
3. Explicitly grounding the GSF in a human rights framework presents a number of advantages. By endorsing such a framework and seeking to define their policies in accordance with what such a framework prescribes, countries are provided a reference point, based on their existing international obligations, for coordination efforts. This facilitates the search for a consensus between them. A human rights framework also requires the participation, as a matter of right, in the design and implementation of development policies, of the ultimate beneficiaries of development. Such participation in turn is facilitated by the invocation of internationally agreed human rights as benchmarks, by which the effectiveness of efforts could be judged. A reference to the realization of the right to adequate food as the ultimate aim of food security strategies thus not only provides us with an objective evaluation tool of these strategies; it also improves the effectiveness of these strategies, by obliging countries, international agencies and donors alike to pay greater attention to the impacts of their policy choices, both intended and unintended, direct and indirect, particularly on the most vulnerable sectors of society.
4. The reference to the VGRtF in section III “The foundations and overarching framework” (paras. 23-25) is very important and should be retained, but it should be put in the broader context of existing human rights norms and standards that frame States' duties to progressively realize the right to food, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the authoritative interpretation of this right provided by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 12. The Special Rapporteur is aware that these norms are referenced in the definition of the right to food (paras. 14-16), but they should also appear in Section III.
5. Explicitly grounding the GSF in a human rights framework is also a matter of efficiency in delivering results: the seven recommended steps to implement the VGRtF (para. 38), combined with the human rights principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, equality, transparency and the rule of law, serve to ensure that national, regional and global food security policies are on the right track in effectively fighting hunger.
B. The GSF and monitoring
6. With the 2009 reform, it was agreed that accountability would be at the center of the CFS’s work. As the CSF enters its second phase of reform, it is expected to “promote accountability and share best practices at all levels”, and to establish “an innovative mechanism, including the definition of common indicators, to monitor progress towards these agreed upon objectives and actions.” At its 37th session, the CFS confirmed its intention to proceed into the second phase of reform in due time and underscored the importance of monitoring by requesting “the CFS Secretariat, in collaboration with the Advisory Group, and based on the information made available by the relevant stakeholders, to prepare a general report on the state of implementation" of its recommendations to be presented to CFS. The CFS Bureau has also renewed its attention on monitoring by creating an open-ended working group on the issue.
7. The First Draft of the GSF clearly emphasizes the importance of monitoring and accountability (paras. 94-102), and it states that right to food indicators should be used in the process (para. 95). Those references could be further strengthened. Guideline 17 of the VGRtF addresses monitoring, indicators and benchmarks. UN agencies have devoted significant energy to conceptualize and operationalize rights-based monitoring since the adoption of the VGRtF in 2004. The Updated Comprehensive Framework of Action (UCFA) of the High-Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF) also refers to a rights-based monitoring methodology, including the use of a set of illustrative indicators on the right to food, based upon the work of FAO and OHCHR.
8. The GSF could usefully build on this accumulated experience. As such, the monitoring mechanism associated with the GSF should be grounded explicitly in a human rights framework, which would provide countries with a reference point based on their existing international obligations. To do so, it could usefully be specified in Section E that monitoring should be focused on the progressive realization of the right to food, and paragraph 97 could reflect the following five key principles for monitoring and accountability systems:
a) The requirement of accountability should extend to all orientations adopted by the CFS Plenary, including the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, as well as the substantive elements of the GSF, which should in turn be considered in the broader context of international norms and standards on the right to food;
b) Adequate participation in monitoring should be ensured, by taking into account in the process of monitoring inputs from non-State actors, including UN agencies, civil society and independent experts. The advantages of a multistakeholder peer-review mechanism analogous to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) system of the Human Rights Council were outlined in a letter to CFS members dated 18 January 2012, and subsequently in a joint open letter dated 19 March 2012 to States negotiating the Rio+20 Summit Outcome document (signed by twenty-two special procedures mandate holders of the Human Rights Council) . The process employed by the UPR provides a model that should guide our discussions. Other solutions, however, could be considered, including the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism – an Observatory – that would provide the CFS plenary with independent reports on the implementation of CFS decisions, like the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) provides the CFS plenary with independent expertise. Whichever the solution ultimately preferred, parallel reporting from civil society is essential to the credibility of the monitoring process;
c) In order to be manageable, the monitoring of the implementation of the orientations set by the CFS should concern a few priorities every year, allowing cross-country comparisons and collective learning across different regions; the aim should be that, based on the information provided, the CFS engages in a dialogue on implementation of the major orientations it has adopted every four or five years (for instance, such a cyclical approach could lead the successive sessions of the CFS in 2013-2016 to follow up respectively on: (1) investments in agriculture and food security, taking into account the challenge of climate change; (2) the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security; (3) price volatility and social protection; and (4) other orientations set by the GSF, not covered under the headings above);
d) Under each of the areas covered, the CFS should assess whether or not the CFS Members, in implementing CFS decisions and/or recommendations, have applied human rights principles and standards. Right to food indicators should be used, as rightly suggested in the First Draft. The GFS could build on the set of structural, process and outcome indicators proposed in the UCFA. And in all the areas covered, States should be expected to take measures to ensure that food insecure and marginalized groups are informed about their rights and about the claims mechanisms available;
e) The monitoring process should also provide an opportunity to identify obstacles that countries face in implementing the CFS orientations in a way that is consistent with their obligation to progressively realize the right to food with a view to highlighting issues which require further consideration by the CFS. Thus, the outcomes of regular monitoring should inform the agenda of future CFS plenary sessions: for instance, if many States face a systematic obstacle in meeting the CFS recommendations, the CFS may consider devoting a specific session to addressing that obstacle. The monitoring process should be seen as an iterative process, allowing the CFS to gradually improve its orientations in the light of successes and failures at implementation level, and as an opportunity to identify how the constraints faced by States in implementation could be alleviated, in particular by action at international level.
9. It is the conviction of the Special Rapporteur that the CFS cannot meet its ambition – to be “the foremost inclusive international and intergovernmental platform for a broad range of committed stakeholders to work together in a coordinated manner and in support of country-led processes towards the elimination of hunger and ensuring food security and nutrition for all human beings” – without monitoring and accountability mechanisms, including accountability of CFS Member States to discharge their human rights obligations in the context of achieving food and nutrition security.
C. The GSF and trade
10. The Special Rapporteur supports the inclusion of international trade as an issue that requires concerted efforts in the coming years to build a necessary consensus (para. 74). The confidence in a supposed automatic link between the expansion of international trade and improvements in food security has broken down following the 2007-2008 and 2010 global food price crises. As such, increasing attention is being given to the complex links between trade and food security at national and global levels.
11. For that matter, the Updated Comprehensive Framework of Action (UCFA) of the High-Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis depicts the role of trade in a more elaborated way: “open and well-functioning local, regional and international markets and trade policies are fundamental to food and nutrition security. They should be characterized by price predictability and transparency, function in a stable, transparent and integrated manner and contribute to the realization of internationally agreed human rights. Interventions which support the functioning of international, regional and local markets should be consistent with the goal of achieving food and nutrition security for all and of encouraging efficient and competitive production by smallholders.” It is precisely because the links between trade and the realization of the right to food are complex that human rights impact assessments should be conducted before free trade agreements are agreed upon. The GSF could also better acknowledge this complexity in paragraph 42.
D. Tenure of land, fisheries and forests
12. The section on tenure of land, fisheries and forests (paras. 68-70) should be updated and improved to reflect the discussions held in the CFS on the challenges and problems posed by the expansion of large-scale land acquisitions and leases for food and nutrition security and for the right to food of vulnerable land users. This section should also integrate the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT), which will be considered for endorsement during the 38th Special Session of CFS in Rome on 11 May. The intergovernmental negotiations have been successfully finalized on 9 March 2012. Upon the endorsement, the focus will shift to the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines. States are indeed responsible for the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the VGGT (art. 26.1); and they are encouraged to set up “multi-stakeholder platforms and frameworks” at local, national and regional levels or use such existing platforms and frameworks to collaborate on the implementation of these Guidelines (art. 26.2). The GSF should include these two elements in the section for full coherence across CFS activities.
E. Support to smallholders and agroecology
13. Since the global food price crisis of 2008, there has been a general consensus that we should put greater efforts into supporting small-scale food producers, particularly women, in order to reduce rural poverty and local food insecurity. The GSF usefully integrates these considerations in various sections, including in paras. 39-40 and 57-59, but could further strengthen its focus on the duty to respect, to protect and to fulfil the human rights of smallholders throughout its strategy. The GSF could devote more attention to the policies that promote agroecological methods of farming. In its resolution 16/27 adopted at its 16th session in March 2011, the Human Rights Council “encourages States and donors, both public and private, to examine and consider ways to integrate the recommendations [contained in the report “Agroecology and the right to food” (A/HRC/16/49) submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food] in policies and programmes.” It stressed that “improving access to productive resources and investment in rural development is essential for eradicating hunger and poverty,” and that the promotion of investments “in programmes, practices and policies to scale up agroecological approaches” is a means towards achieving that end.
14. A key recommendation of that report was to call States to “support decentralized participatory research and the dissemination of knowledge about the best sustainable agricultural practices by relying on existing farmers’ organisations and networks, and including schemes designed specifically for women.” Indeed, the expansion and achievements of agroecological modes of production in all continents are impressive, and farmer’s organizations play a vital role in many countries.
15. The GSF should better reflect the importance of agroecology as well as the importance for public authorities to collaborate with farmer’s organizations in the design and implementation of agriculture, nutrition and food security policies.
F. Workers' right and food security
16. The GSF acknowledges that “many agricultural and food workers and their families suffer from hunger and malnutrition because the basic labour laws and minimum wage policies do not cover rural workers” (para. 35). The GSF, however, could usefully underline key steps to be taken by States to tackle this situation, notably the importance of ensuring basic workers’ rights, as set out in the core ILO conventions and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the importance of ensuring living wages to enable rural workers to feed themselves and their families.
17. There are more than 450 million waged agricultural workers globally, composing 40 per cent of the agricultural workforce. Fundamental rights at work are frequently violated in the agricultural sector. Collective bargaining is crucially important for agricultural workers, both because knowledge and enforcement of the law tend to be weak in rural areas and because labour legislation frequently treats the agricultural sector differently from other sectors with regard to issues such as working time, overtime pay or leave.
G. Social protection
18. The right to social security is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The important role that social protection plays in contributing to the right to food is rightly highlighted in the GSF as well as in “Social Protection for Food Security,” the zero draft consultation paper authored by the High Level Panel of Experts.
19. Drawing from the UN common understanding on a human rights based approach, for social protection schemes to contribute to the realization of the right to food it is crucial that they are grounded in an adequate legal and institutional framework; respect the human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination; mainstream gender considerations; guarantee active and meaningful participation; ensure transparency and access to information; and ensure access to complaint mechanisms and to effective remedies.
20. Universal social protection systems are required to prevent food insecurity, malnutrition and hunger among the most marginalized and vulnerable. Recognizing the importance of social protection programmes, the UN system has been undertaking work in this area. In April 2009, the United Nations Chief Executive Board (CEB) launched the Social Protection Floor Initiative as a part of a set of multilateral actions to address the global crises of 2008 (food, financial and economic). The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has also been undertaking work on social protection; And UNICEF has recently published its “Social Protection Strategic Framework” that presents the approach and main principles guiding its work in this area. The GSF could support these initiatives and promote the importance of universal social protection systems for food security and the progressive realization of the right to adequate food.
H. Biofuels
21. The GSF should consider biofuels among the thematic issues for which there is a need for a stronger international consensus. It should thus be included in section I “Major existing gaps in consensus on policy issues.”

Germany,&nbspAnna Borkenhagen , Germany, Member States

Germany welcomes the opportunity to participate in the e-consultation-process of the elaboration of the Global Strategic Framework GSF. We took note that our comments regarding the Zero Draft of the GSF were not taken on.
General Comments about the Purpose and the Goal of the GSF:
1. The GSF is meant to be a living document, summarizing the topics on which currently consensus does exist (Chapter I. – IV. H.). It is explicitly stated that it is not the purpose of the document to discuss topics, where consensus could not be reached yet. Hence, it is misleading to expect a document, which provides completely new incentives or policy advice to eradicate hunger and ensure food security and nutrition for all human beings.
2. The value added of the GSF is, that it can be regarded as single global reference for policies on food security and nutrition that can ensure more coherence and integration among regional strategies and frameworks.
3. Nevertheless, the current version does not meet the aspiration “to chart a new course … by prioritizing key principles, policies and actions”, as specific priorities are barely named within the policy recommendations.
4. Overall policy coherence to FAO strategy should be kept in mind.
The 4 Key Questions:
(1) Are key issues represented on which there is consensus?
General comment: Although CFS decisions have been taken on all of the topics listed under Part IV. A-H, this does not imply that full consensus has been reached (for example: although price volatility has been discussed in the CFS, certain aspects related to price volatility (such as regulation and supervision of agricultural derivative markets) remain areas for further discussion). The same accounts for the topic smallholder-sensitive investments.
Missing aspects under Part VI Policy, Programme and other Recommendations in this regard are:
Under (i): reference to the principle of participation (could be included between Step Three and Four
Under (iv): reference to discrimination and structural violence against women
Under (vi): reference to role of primary and higher education
Under (viii): reference to the Voluntary Guidelines Land Tenure
Missing aspects under V. Uniting and Organizing to fight Hunger are:
Reference to the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN)- process (for more details please consider Annex 1)
Under (iii): reference to nutrition education
Under (v): reference to a global monitoring-mechanism as envisioned in the CFS reform-document of 2009
(2) Does the list of areas where gaps in policy convergence exist need to be amended? (Chapter IV. I. Major existing gaps in consensus on policy issues)
General comment: It would be good to specify the purpose of the list of gaps in policy coherence – to possibly list priorities and objectives, and indicate how they will feed into the CFS work plan.
Missing aspects are:
- the conflict between the demand of water for agricultural production and other sectors
Since a definition of the green economy-concept is part of the Rio+20 negotiations, it should be refrained from mentioning it explicitly in the GSF
possible additional topics:
• Improving practical linkages of short-term and long-term measures.
• Cross-border cooperation (infrastructure, ecosystems/resource use, markets; programming by donors)
• Climate change (likely to be considered at the next CFS session)
(3) Sufficient practical regional and country level relevance?
The practical relevance for the regional and country level of the document is rather limited. However, specific documents and strategies for the practical use at country and regional level already exist (such as CAADP or also the UCFA). So it is questionable, whether a globally negotiated document like the GSF needs incorporate such a practical relevance.
(4) Possible linkages to regional and national food security and nutrition frameworks and strategies?
The linkages to national and regional strategies as well as monitoring systems is not clearly obvious.
ANNEX 1: recommendation for the inclusion of a SUN-reference in the document
It is recommended to include a reference to the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement into part V Uniting and Organizing to fight Hunger.
As new paragraphs 77a. the following is suggested:
77a. The Scaling Up Nutrition Movement (SUN) was initiated in September 2010 to encourage increased political commitment to accelerate reductions in global hunger and under-nutrition, within the context of the right to adequate food security for all. The Movement is advancing rapidly: governments from 27 countries with high levels of under-nutrition have committed to scale up nutrition. They are supported by a broad range of domestic stakeholders from multiple sectors and global networks of donors, civil society, businesses, research bodies and the United Nations system.
Governments, and their partners in the Movement are increasing resources for nutrition and better aligning their financial and technical support with these national priorities. They are helping countries implement their specific nutrition interventions and their nutrition-sensitive development strategies. They are working with SUN countries in a whole of Government approach that seeks to ensure improved nutrition outcomes across multiple sectors such as agriculture, health, social welfare, education or environment. Those in the Movement are working together to reduce fragmentation at the national, regional and global levels, stimulate coherence and alignment around food security and nutrition policies, and support the realization of results

The following comments are the result of an initial email consultation with North American civil society organizations concerning the first draft of the CFS Global Strategic Framework (GSF) carried out during the month of February. Our comments are divided into two categories:
• Comments on the accuracy of the reported consensus on each of the policy areas in the GSF.
• Comments on the further policy areas to be considered by the CFS.
A. Accuracy of the Reported Consensus
i. Para 11: Users of the GSF – the current wording focuses on those government ministries responsible for food security/right to food and international development assistance only. Yet international policies related to trade, finance, etc. in all countries have a bearing on food security and the implementation of the human right to adequate food. The GSF should be addressed to all UN member countries with reference to all policies affecting food security and human right to adequate food.
ii. Definitions – in the Zero Draft the term ‘Food Sovereignty’ was included. It was subsequently in this draft relegated to future topics. Yet this term was coined and developed by an international process by non-state actors, has been part of the food security discourse for over a decade and it retains its validity and importance by its origin with those who are food insecure. It should be retained in the definitions section.
iii. Para 18: Structural Causes – the structure and functioning of food markets play a crucial role in food security but are not mentioned. This is a serious deficiency. Market failures and lack of competition due to dumping and corporate concentration undermine local agriculture as both a vital basis for livelihoods adequate to support food security and, most of the time in most places, a reliable source of healthy food.
iv. Para 31: Access to Resources – under a section titled ‘actions’ this is only diagnostic. The Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food contain several sections dealing with specific actions which should be included here.
v. Para 39: Increasing smallholder-sensitive Investment – it is widely recognized that the creation and maintenance of remunerative employment is a key element of smallholder-sensitive investment but this point is absent in the text.
vi. Para 53: Trade and Price Volatility – the role of trade in making a positive contribution to food security is given special prominence despite the fact that it is mentioned again under Actions to Reduce Volatility. This special prominence does not reflect the consensus reached in the Round Table. Similarly, in the fourth bullet point, text has been added referring to ‘ambitious, balanced, fair and comprehensive conclusion’, text that was not part of the outcome of the Round Table.
vii. Social Protection and Safety Nets – it is not appropriate to include this section before the full discussion of the topic at CFS 38.
viii. Para 75: New Food Aid Treaty – this treaty deals principally with commitments to make available food assistance resources to meet emergency and chronic needs. These are not limited to their use in social protection or safety nets. It would be more appropriate to include this point under Section D - Making it happen: linking policies and programmes with resources to ensure that it is included in international assistance to food security. Clarification of language is also needed – is it food aid or food assistance?
ix. Climate Change and Natural Resource Management – it is not appropriate to include this section before the full discussion of the topic at CFS 38. The most affected stakeholders, farmers in developing countries, have had no opportunity to be part of any consensus formation.
B. Further Policy Areas for CFS – Para 88
1. Current text
i. Definition of Food Sovereignty – as noted earlier, the term food sovereignty was introduced by civil society over a decade ago and has already been subject to several international processes by civil society to arrive at a definition. It is not clear what added value a wider discussion will yield.
ii. Exit Strategy for Small-Scale Farmers – the first priority should be given to creating the conditions for most of these farmers to become productive and food secure. The focus on unreliable ‘exit strategies’ because they are subsistence farmers is simply not appropriate when talking about more than 50% of the population in many developing countries. The focus should instead be on remunerative employment with dignity. If employment can be generated from outside agriculture as well, so much the better. But for many countries, particularly LDCs, agriculture is the obvious, historically tested path is to focus on improving opportunities in agriculture and its related services.
2. New Proposals
i. Food Reserves for Resilience – much of the earlier discussion of food reserves focussed on their effectiveness in reducing excessive food price volatility on national markets. However, with the declining availability of international food assistance and continuing international market volatility, the role of food reserves as an essential tool for resilience in the national food supply needs further consideration. Changes in current international agricultural trade policies and the best policies for ensuring that such reserves serve to support rather than undermine well functioning local markets needs to be considered.
Based on input from Stephen Bartlett (Agriculture Missions), Christina Schiavoni (WhyHunger), Cathleen Kneen (Food Secure Canada), Stuart Clark (Canadian Foodgrains Bank), Sophia Murphy (IATP), Faris Ahmed (USC Canada), David Andrews (Food and Water Watch), and others.
24 April 2012